Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 24SMCV02357, Date: 2024-12-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02357    Hearing Date: December 16, 2024    Dept: I

This is a motion to strike the answer.  The motion is MOOT.  The moving papers suggest that Ernest Financial’s answer be stricken because it is suspended and because Bogner, who filed the answer, is not licensed to practice law in California.  Normally, those would be compelling arguments.  But Ernest Financial did not file an answer, so there is nothing to strike and no one engaged in any improper conduct.  Bogner filed his own answer, but he is allowed to do so.  The court will direct that no default be taken for 30 days against Ernest Financial.  If, during that time, it cures the suspension and files an answer (through California counsel), then the case can move forward.  Otherwise, the likely result is that it will be defaulted.

The matter is also here on a CMC.  The court will inquire whether it is likely that Ernest Financial will answer.  After all, it is possible that there is no intent to answer (and Bogner might well know one way or the other).  If Ernest Financial is going by way of default, then it makes sense to hold the CMC and set appropriate dates.